I code and do art things. Check https://private.horse64.org/u/ell1e for the person behind this content. For my projects, https://codeberg.org/ell1e has many of them.
“oversight” is a myth. I’m pretty sure you can’t oversight your way of plagiarism out of millions of training data sources that you don’t even have on your local disk for comparison and reference.
(This isn’t legal advice. I’m not a lawyer.)
He might consider himself forced to use it to find bugs. He wouldn’t be forced to use it to write the fix.
(Now you might say he wasn’t or isn’t, but even if that were true for the kernel at large this doesn’t seem to be: https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/10/linus-torvalds-says-ai-has-made-huge-linux-kernel-updates-the-new-normal/5285268 And this seems like mostly to be on Linus, for not stepping in here.)
FreeDOS actually does have an anti AI policy, at least when it comes to code commits: https://www.freedos.org/about/ai/ So you might be onto something here!
Seems like an AI apologists article. Sounds a bit like “bans are hard so why even bother.”
No, the alternatives exist and people can choose them where able: https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index Sure, not all things are available AI free, e.g. there’s no Linux kernel (NetBSD doesn’t run on as much hardware), but that doesn’t mean there’s no point in choosing no AI software where possible, if you care about it.
The enforceability part seems the most apologist to me. You never could really know if some contributor wasn’t copying leaked Windows XP code into your FOSS project. If you trust contributors that little, don’t let them contribute.
so why are you advocating for not avoiding all generative AI code then? you specifically cited Linus, who does as far as i know not ensure cleared up training data (what would that even be, CC0 only?) like you seem to be advocating for.